 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Steiner v. Wisconsin American Mutual Insurance Co.6/9/2005
tiffs' injuries, and the Corporation and WAMIC, its insurer, may be subject to liability for the plaintiffs' injuries.
We therefore reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand the cause to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
By the Court.--The decision of the court of appeals is reversed and the cause remanded.
JON P. WILCOX, J. (dissenting).
I disagree with the majority's conclusion that "under Wis. Stat. § 846.30 [2000-01 ] equitable title remains with a land contract vendee until a circuit court enters a final order, following the redemption period for strict foreclosure, confirming the land contract vendee's nonredemption." Majority op., . I would hold that under § 846.30, equitable title on a land contract passes as a matter of law following the vendee's nonpayment at the end of the redemption period, as established by the land contract or a previously issued court order for strict foreclosure. While the circuit court is required under the statute to enter a final order confirming the vendee's nonredemption, such order is not required in order for title to pass.
This position is in accordance with the common law governing land contracts, which, contrary to the majority's assertion, majority op., , was quite clear. The common law governing the passage of title for land contracts was shaped primarily by two cases: St. Joseph's Hospital v. Maternity Hospital, 224 Wis. 422, 273 N.W.791 (1937), and Exchange Corporation of Wisconsin v. Kuntz, 56 Wis. 2d 555, 202 N.W.2d 393 (1972).
The issue in St. Joseph's Hospital was whether a circuit court had power in a strict foreclosure action to extend the period of redemption before that period expired. St. Joseph's Hosp., 224 Wis. at 424-425. In addressing this issue, the court stated:
A judgment of strict foreclosure of a land contract does not produce absolute finality. In such judgments, a subsequent order barring the defendant's interest and claims for want of redemption is essential in order to declare and quiet title in the plaintiff, and a writ for removing the defendant from the premises is contemplated in case it becomes necessary. Proceedings at the foot of the judgment are a matter of course in these cases and the litigation is not at an end until they are taken. It would seem, a priori, that until the final order contemplated, an order making the judgment absolute, has been entered, anything discretionary might properly be done by the court that has material bearing upon the equities of the parties respecting the order finally ending the litigation between them. Independent of a statute providing for extension in strict foreclosure cases of the period of redemption from judgments not become absolute, a court as a court of equity would unquestionably have power to extend in effect the period of redemption provided for in its judgment if such extension were required by equity and good conscience.
Id. at 430.
This language from St. Joseph's Hospital can be read in one of two ways. First, it could be interpreted as holding that equitable title in a land contract does not pass at the end of the redemption period in a strict foreclosure action, but requires a final order confirming that title had passed because the court retains the power to extend the redemption period until a final order is entered confirming a judgment of strict foreclosure. However, such a broad ruling would seem unnecessary in light of the facts in St. Joseph's Hospital because there, the challenged circuit court order was an order extending the period of redemption on a land contract before the original period of redem
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Wisconsin Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|